This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [discuss] small challenge for instruction selection
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at novell dot com>
- To: <suresh dot b dot siddha at intel dot com>,<hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: <drow at false dot org>,<binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>, <ak at suse dot de>,<zach at vmware dot com>, <discuss at x86-64 dot org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:06:13 -0600
- Subject: Re: [discuss] small challenge for instruction selection
>>> "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> 16.06.05 03:11:08 >>>
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 05:29:07PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > movl $0x80706050,0x40302010(%rdi)
> > > ret $0xb0a0
> > >
> > > Is 3 bytes overhead with 8+2 bytes contiguous.
> >
> > Nice. Thanks Zachary. Any other calls? :)
>
> with 2 bytes overhead.
>
> // mov %eax,0x8070605040302010
> __asm__ __volatile__ ( ".byte 0xa3; .quad 0x8070605040302010");
> __asm__ __volatile__ ( "ret $0xa090");
>
> Assembler is not generating the intended code when I use the mnemonic form
> for the first asm stmt. Disassembly is fine though.
>
>
>I opened a bug:
>
>http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1013
I don't think that's a bug: include/opcodes/i386.h explicitly disallows this mov form in 64-bit mode; movabs is to be used here instead. This is because for symbolics you'd have an ambiguity resulting otherwise in that you could encode this mov with either 64-bit displacement or sign-extended 32-bit one, with no way for the programmer to indicate which one to choose. Thus you've got to use movabs here to make clear you want a 64-bit disp, and use mov when you rather (and that's very reasonably the default) want a 32-bit one.
Jan